I would have confidence in the bond voting results if the people directly responsible for placing it on the ballot, or who are on the city payroll, were not lobbying on it.The fact the majority of councilmen are advocating a position regarding how to vote and thus impacting the results of the election outcome can be protested and challenged in the courts. This behavior from council members creates poor will, trust issues, and may lead to lawsuit exposure, and unwanted expense to taxpayers.
Mayor Gary A. Slagel, and at least three other Councilmen (Steve Mitchell, Bob Macy, Mark Solomon), are publicly lobbying about the bond. It is not known at this time if other of the council are. UPDATE: Amir Omar added to those lobbying in favor.
Another concern is about the Chamber. The Chamber of Commerce top employees receive their salaries from the taxpayers (the City) in their role as leaders of the Richardson Economic Development Partnership. There appears one or more large lobbying signs authorized in front of the Chamber. This may be legal, but is it ethical? The challenge with having poorly respected walls of separation is where does their responsibility as city officials (paid by the city, by taxpayers at large) end and where do their Chamber responsibilities to voting membership begin?
Citizens are supposed to be free to cast a vote without undue interference from city officials. This is the problem when there are no clear walls of separation practiced for a city, particularly the size and budget of Richardson. This is not a new issue for the Chamber lobbying for passage of city measures. A PAC in a past year went so far as to list the Chamber's street address on its mailer (as its own address).
In the history of the Chamber, it was not always the case that the Chamber staff received salary payments from the City (Taxpayers). This practice should have never started.
Other concerns,
At least one of the staff from the library is publicly lobbying.
Salaries are a part of the bond which further complicates the associations.
Some city board members who are city officials and who are directly appointed by the council are lobbying, including those who put up projects on a list from their positions as board members to be included in the bond, which were included.
At least one "not for profit" in Richardson is taking a political position which is impacts its status as a not for profit.
I have no doubt the proposals will pass given the above lobbying along with those who sincerely feel that the debt, including over 1/3 costs added to include contingencies and salary amounts, economy, other tax obligations and so forth are of less concern than spending to acquire all the listed projects in the proposed amounts in the hopes of strengthening Richardson. There are some good projects that is certain.
I have no doubt that a large number of Richardsonians want a strong Richardson that is outstanding in all areas, but the questionable lobbying by public officials is of no small concern. The more I see going on, the worse I feel about the unfolding of this bond election despite if it passes or fails at the polls.
UPDATE: Chief Spivey sends out an email saying that the bond impacts his department and we should all vote. In my opinion it crossed the line. What happened to the olden days where the City had good judgement not to ask its employees to lobby when it is a violation? Neighborhood Services gets in on the act, but not as blatant as Chief Spivey's email to citizens.
UPDATE: Neighborhood Associations Boards are lopsided lobbists in favor of bond passage by only mentioning their view of one side of the bond issue "how [our The Neighborhood] and the surrounding community will be improved" (come click on our web site) . No mention of the debt, spending, and total existing outstanding debt. Is this is to be expected from those charged with following COR rules, being recognized by COR, and repeating PR from COR?
